Nevada Once Again Leads Nation in Women Murdered by MenMost women are killed not by a stranger, but by someone they know, usually an "intimate partner" (a spouse, common-law spouse, ex-spouse, or boyfriend).
FBI data reveals the predictable role played by firearms in escalating domestic violence to domestic homicide.Another study found that women who were murdered were more likely, not less likely, to have purchased a handgun in the three years prior to their deaths, again invalidating the idea that a handgun has a protective effect against homicide.

Etc. You get the idea. Of course these 'studies' are also performed by Joyce Foundation grant recipients w/ a predetermined conclusion. Now let's look at the real numbers w. a thanks to reader LE45:

Thirty five women were killed by men in Nevada in 2010.

Less than half (15) were killed with firearms.

11 of those were killed with handguns.

6 of those shot with handguns were in an intimate relationship with the men who killed them

So again Josh takes a small subset of statistics and manipulates them to make it sound like there is an epidemic of violence in order to mislead the public. IOW. Lie.

6 comments:

As many others are wont to say, correlation does not equal causation. The 'women murdered were more likely' line is an example of this. Another (again unfounded, bear with me here) explanation that women who feel threatened are more likely to have a gun, and women who feel threatened are more likely to be killed. The correlation is not cause and effect, but two effects of the same cause. A similar situation would be that people who have lots of money are more likely to have a pool; people with a pool are more likely to drown. By their logic, wealth causes people to drown. People who live in cold climates are more likely to own heavy coats; living in a cold climate increases the likelihood of frostbite. Therefore, heavy coats cause frostbite.

It is also an incomplete picture if trying to weigh the pros and cons of gun ownership. While it is much more difficult to measure, what about all of the times women with guns stopped male attackers, maybe persuaded them without even firing a shot. They do not show up in these statistics with their approach.

In many ways, it is impossible to get an active picture of those. Its like hearing about car wrecks that didn't happen. But in choosing their data, they've excluded any conclusion other than their predetermined one- as Thirdpower said, lied. Between the exceedingly small dataset and the cherry picking nature of the statistical sampling, their finding cannot possibly hold up. Its got to be intended only for people they know wont check their facts. More crap, on top of the old.